Dispute in the 1950s Sample Clauses

Dispute in the 1950s. In early 1952, Pakistan established a prohibited area along its western border with Afghanistan,229 therefore Indian carriers were forced to fly via Karachi before continuing to Iran, and then north to Kabul, comprising a flight path of 1,900 miles.230 India claimed that Pakistan violated Article 9 of the Chicago Convention, because the action was discriminatory: the prohibited area was subjectively imposed only against India; in contrast, other countries, such as Iran, still enjoyed the privilege of overflight.231 Second, the Pakistani pro- hibited airspace is not of reasonable extent and location, because of its excessive impact upon commercial aviation.232 Pakistan countered that it had simply inherited the prohibited areas estab- lished in British India in 1935,233 and due to the hostility of the local popula- tion toward India, the government could not guarantee the safety of Indian crew and passengers along Pakistan’s western border.234 Speaking of the legality of the 1950s prohibited area, it seems difficult to justify Pakistan’s action as far as Article 9 of the Chicago Convention is con- cerned. Being a Contracting States of the Chicago Convention since 1947,235 Pakistan has agreed to observe the conditions in Article 9 in establishing prohibited airspace; the historical west-border restrictions have to be viewed in light of lex posterior, the Chicago Convention. Article 9 of the Chicago Convention requires Contracting States not to discriminate aircraft on the basis of nationality. Pakistan’s action in 1950s, driven by the population’s opposition 229 Xxxxx, pp. 204-205. 230 Xxxxxx X. Xxxxx, Airspace Closure and Civil Aviation, Routledge 2016, pp. 172-174. 231 Xxxxx, pp. 204-205. 232 Xxxxxx X. Xxxxx, Airspace Closure and Civil Aviation, Routledge 2016, p. 173. 233 ibid. 234 ICAO Press Release 1952, in Xxxxxx X. Xxxxx, Airspace Closure and Civil Aviation, Routledge 2016, p. 173. 235 Pakistan adheres to the Chicago Convention on 6 November 1947. India adheres to the Chicago Convention on 1 March 1947. See https://xxx.xxxx.xxx/secretariat/legal/List% 20of%20Parties/Chicago_EN.pdf, last accessed 6 September 2020. against India, did target Indian carrier and Indian aircraft.236 It was only Indian aircraft that cannot transit over the said prohibited area in Pakistan. Thus, a distinction is made due to aircraft’s nationality; this distinction violates Article 9 of the Chicago Convention. Finally, the dispute was settled through Pakistan’s establishment ...
Sample 1Sample 2
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to Dispute in the 1950s

  • Settlement of Disputes between the Parties 1. Any dispute between the Parties concerning the interpretation or application of this Chapter shall, as far as possible, be settled with consultation through diplomatic channel. 2. If a dispute cannot thus be settled within 6 months, it shall, upon the request of either Party, be submitted to an ad hoc arbitral tribunal. 3. Such tribunal comprises of 3 arbitrators. Within 2 months of the receipt of the written notice requesting arbitration, each Party shall appoint one arbitrator. Those 2 arbitrators shall, within further 2 months, together select a national of a third State having diplomatic relations with both Parties who, upon approval by the Parties, shall be appointed as Chairman of the arbitral tribunal. 4. If the arbitral tribunal has not been constituted within 4 months from the receipt of the written notice requesting arbitration, either Party may, in the absence of any other agreement, invite the President of the International Court of Justice to make any necessary appointments. If the President is a national of either Party or is otherwise prevented from discharging the said functions, the Member of the International Court of Justice next in seniority who is not a national of either Party or is not otherwise prevented from discharging the said functions shall be invited to make such necessary appointments. 5. The arbitral tribunal shall determine its own procedure. The arbitral tribunal shall reach its award in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement and the principles of international law recognized by both Parties. 6. The arbitral tribunal shall reach its award by a majority of votes. Such award shall be final and binding upon both Parties. The arbitral tribunal shall, upon the request of either Party, explain the reasons of its award. 7. Each Party shall bear the costs of its appointed arbitrator and of its representation in arbitral proceedings. The relevant costs of the Chairman and tribunal shall be borne in equal parts by the Parties.

  • Disputes between the Parties Any dispute between the Parties in connection with this Agreement shall be resolved by arbitration in accordance with the procedures set forth in Exhibit B; provided, however, that either Party may seek a restraining order, temporary injunction, or other provisional relief in any court with jurisdiction over the subject matter of the dispute and sitting in Houston, Texas, if such Party in its sole judgment believes that such action is necessary to avoid irreparable injury or to preserve the status quo ante.

  • Dispute a. In the event of any dispute whatsoever in respect of the sale, the Purchaser hereby expressly agrees to resolve the same with the Assignee.

  • Payment Disputes We will not exercise Our rights under Section 6.3 (Overdue Charges) or 6.4 (Suspension of Service and Acceleration) above if You are disputing the applicable charges reasonably and in good faith and are cooperating diligently to resolve the dispute.

  • Disagreement If the Parties reasonably and in good faith disagree as to whether there has been a material breach, the Party that seeks to dispute that there has been a material breach may contest the allegation in accordance with Section 13.1. The cure period for any allegation made in good faith as to a material breach under this Agreement will, subject to Sections 12.3.1 and 13.2, run from the date that written notice was first provided to the Breaching Party by the Non-Breaching Party.

  • Agreement Made in California; Venue The formation, interpretation and performance of this Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. Venue for all litigation relative to the formation, interpretation and performance of this Agreement shall be in San Francisco.

  • Disputed Xxxx 2.9.1 If the Buying Entity does not dispute a Monthly Xxxx raised by the other Party within fifteen (15) days of receiving such Xxxx shall be taken as conclusive and binding.

  • Settlement of Disputes between the Contracting Parties 1. Disputes between the Contracting Parties concerning the interpretation or application of this Agreement should, if possible, be settled through diplomatic channels.

  • Disputes In the case of a dispute as to the determination of the Exercise Price or the arithmetic calculation of the number of Warrant Shares issuable in connection with any exercise, the Company shall promptly deliver to the Holder the number of Warrant Shares that are not disputed.

  • Performance while Dispute is Pending Notwithstanding the existence of a dispute, the Supplier must continue without delay to carry out all of its responsibilities under the Contract that are not affected by the dispute. If the Supplier fails to continue without delay to perform its responsibilities under the Contract, in the accomplishment of all undisputed work, the Supplier will bear any additional costs incurred by Sourcewell and/or its Participating Entities as a result of such failure to proceed.

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.